Romney puts forth his foreign policy platform

[Jonsa]

It is based upon assumptions as I have pointed out. Please tell me how much revenue to the Federal govt. 23 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers generates?

depends on how much money as a group they spend surviving. I assume that the businesses they patronize pay taxes. Might be interesting to actually investigate that.

Do you understand economic growth at all? Do you understand that we won't have a 3.8 trillion dollar budget under Romney? Do you have any concept of how much govt. the people of this country need when they keep more of what they earn? Do you understand that in 2007 the U.S. Treasury collected a record amount of tax revenue?

I absolutely understand the role of growth. If you had bothered to examine the link I gave you, it assumes a 8.1% growth rate. I'd say that was pretty spectacular growth. the projection includes the tax breaks/adjustments that romney has proposed and the increased revenue that the growth rate would generate. Do you understand economic modelling at all?

And as for 2007's record amount of tax collected, you are aware that this was the pinnacle before the bubble burst? Unsustainable growth in home owner equity, excellent stock market performance, record (at the time) corporate profits, Wall st running amok and a variety of other variables that considering you insistance on vast economic and business knowledge would be taken into your picture of what actually happened. To attribute that revenue increase solely to tax cuts is disengenuous because I know you are aware of all of this.

All this effort on your part continues to divert from the Obama record. He took office on a hope and change message with no specifics. Now people are demanding specifics from Romney while ignoring history of what pro growth economic policies generate for the govt.

Nope. Obama's record is about as expected given the circumstances which apparently you are perfectly content to completely ignore. I am not ignoring a "pro-growth" economic policy, what I am asking is what does Mr. Etchasketch mean when he spouts such a platitude? What are the implications of those as warm and fuzzy policies and the rules and regulations that will surround such? It seems if anyone has a simplistic perpsective on economic growth in a global economy its you.

Come on, tell us all the wonderful things other than a tax code overhaul, reduced capital gains, elimination of estate taxes, dividends reverted to capital gains, etc aren't going to substantially reduce the riches tax burden? Tell us all how middle income earners will not be effected by closing "various as yet undefined" tax "loopholes".

It just ain't nearly as simple as you make it sound and obviously as you would like the gullible to believe. I know you don't believe it as us old business hands have built hundreds of budgets and sales projections and understand the negative effects of getting just a few assumptions wrong.
Most recently we have the Obama projections that failed to take into account the severity of the global situation, the intractability of the republicans in congress after 2008, and big business refusing to re-invest any of their $5 trillion in cash that they are currently sitting on due to record corporate profits in each of the past four years. The result - failed expectations all the way around - not to mention cheap political fodder for the opposition as they completely ignore their own little contribution to the outcome.

 

[Conservative]

depends on how much money as a group they spend surviving. I assume that the businesses they patronize pay taxes. Might be interesting to actually investigate that.



I absolutely understand the role of growth. If you had bothered to examine the link I gave you, it assumes a 8.1% growth rate. I'd say that was pretty spectacular growth. the projection includes the tax breaks/adjustments that romney has proposed and the increased revenue that the growth rate would generate. Do you understand economic modelling at all?

And as for 2007's record amount of tax collected, you are aware that this was the pinnacle before the bubble burst? Unsustainable growth in home owner equity, excellent stock market performance, record (at the time) corporate profits, Wall st running amok and a variety of other variables that considering you insistance on vast economic and business knowledge would be taken into your picture of what actually happened. To attribute that revenue increase solely to tax cuts is disengenuous because I know you are aware of all of this.




Nope. Obama's record is about as expected given the circumstances which apparently you are perfectly content to completely ignore. I am not ignoring a "pro-growth" economic policy, what I am asking is what does Mr. Etchasketch mean when he spouts such a platitude? What are the implications of those as warm and fuzzy policies and the rules and regulations that will surround such? It seems if anyone has a simplistic perpsective on economic growth in a global economy its you.

Come on, tell us all the wonderful things other than a tax code overhaul, reduced capital gains, elimination of estate taxes, dividends reverted to capital gains, etc aren't going to substantially reduce the riches tax burden? Tell us all how middle income earners will not be effected by closing "various as yet undefined" tax "loopholes".

It just ain't nearly as simple as you make it sound and obviously as you would like the gullible to believe. I know you don't believe it as us old business hands have built hundreds of budgets and sales projections and understand the negative effects of getting just a few assumptions wrong.
Most recently we have the Obama projections that failed to take into account the severity of the global situation, the intractability of the republicans in congress after 2008, and big business refusing to re-invest any of their $5 trillion in cash that they are currently sitting on due to record corporate profits in each of the past four years. The result - failed expectations all the way around - not to mention cheap political fodder for the opposition as they completely ignore their own little contribution to the outcome.

What is absolutely amazing is how Obama gets a pass and apparently holds no responsibility for anything that has happened the past four years. I will take my chances with a Romney Administration after four years of failure. It is always someone else's fault when it is Obama and the question is why? He is responsible for the results generated and as a leader you ought to understand that.

What you failed to take into account is that rhetoric doesn't trump experience and a resume. As a business "executive" you ought to understand that. This country wasn't built on Obama's vision nor was it created by having a President who blames someone else for his own failures.

Obama has no concept of leadership but loves the benefits that come with being called a leader. You can continue to divert from the Obama record, blame the Congress, blame Europe, blame the weather, blame the breakdown of the teleprompter but what it boils down to is Obama is incompetent and doesn't deserve four more years and the country cannot afford four more years of Obama

 

[Jonsa]

What is absolutely amazing is how Obama gets a pass and apparently holds no responsibility for anything that has happened the past four years. I will take my chances with a Romney Administration after four years of failure. It is always someone else's fault when it is Obama and the question is why? He is responsible for the results generated and as a leader you ought to understand that.

What you failed to take into account is that rhetoric doesn't trump experience and a resume. As a business "executive" you ought to understand that. This country wasn't built on Obama's vision nor was it created by having a President who blames someone else for his own failures.

So you don't have an argument with what I posted, you simply revert to your "Obama gets a pass" whinging, as tho its his fault that most people understand that normal performance in abnormal situations cannot be reasonably expected, except by supporters of the party that ran the ship into the iceberg.

Obama has no concept of leadership but loves the benefits that come with being called a leader. You can continue to divert from the Obama record, blame the Congress, blame Europe, blame the weather, blame the breakdown of the teleprompter but what it boils down to is Obama is incompetent and doesn't deserve four more years and the country cannot afford four more years of Obama

I don't divert from his record. It is you and yours that seem to feel he has done nothing. You also have the typical american trait of having to have somebody to lay the blame on for your own miseries and malfeasance. You also have a great deal of trouble with semantics seemingly unable to discern the considerable difference in meaning of an "excuse" and a "reason". Mixing them up, will definitely distort reality.

 

[Conservative]

So you don't have an argument with what I posted, you simply revert to your "Obama gets a pass" whinging, as tho its his fault that most people understand that normal performance in abnormal situations cannot be reasonably expected, except by supporters of the party that ran the ship into the iceberg.

I don't divert from his record. It is you and yours that seem to feel he has done nothing. You also have the typical american trait of having to have somebody to lay the blame on for your own miseries and malfeasance. You also have a great deal of trouble with semantics seemingly unable to discern the considerable difference in meaning of an "excuse" and a "reason". Mixing them up, will definitely distort reality.

I didn't respond because I know that you have no idea as to the role of govt. or apparently the role of the President. The article didn't mention the cut in the size of govt even though it projected economic growth. With that economic growth where is the job creation and new taxpayers? Where is the corporate tax revenue increases, excise tax revenue increases. Where is the state revenue growth due to national strong economic growth thus the less need for taxpayer bailouts.

The article has no idea what loopholes are going to be cut and no idea what the Romney economic plan is other than he will not be promoting class warfare, will not be growing the size of govt, won't be promoting the demonization of individual wealth creation or equal outcome instead of equal opportunity. Tax cuts did not cause the finanical collapses and that is what the liberal media doesn't want to tell the people. It makes no sense that any American keeping more of what they earn caused the financial collapse nor is it an expense to the govt.

Far too many look at pure arithmetic and ignore human behavior. Obama never understood it nor do most of his supporters. Obama spends more time on TV, on vacation, playing golf, campaigning, and fund raising. What you don't seem to understand is that a good Presidential record wouldn't require all that fundraising to spin the record.

Obama is an empty suit, he is incompetent, and no matter how you spin it Romney will have a mess to clean up but has the experience and will hire the people to do it.

 

[AdamT]

Looks like there's some dissent in the ranks....

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) publicly broke with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney's espoused approach to foreign policy on Wednesday, writing in a column for CNN that he was "a bit dismayed" by the former governor's remarks made two days earlier.

"Romney chose to criticize President Obama for seeking to cut a bloated Defense Department and for not being bellicose enough in the Middle East, two assertions with which I cannot agree," Paul wrote. "We owe it to ourselves, our soldiers and our children to take a more careful look at our foreign policy, to not rush into war, and to not attempt to score political points with wrongheaded policy ideas."

 

[Jonsa]

I didn't respond because I know that you have no idea as to the role of govt. or apparently the role of the President. The article didn't mention the cut in the size of govt even though it projected economic growth. With that economic growth where is the job creation and new taxpayers? Where is the corporate tax revenue increases, excise tax revenue increases. Where is the state revenue growth due to national strong economic growth thus the less need for taxpayer bailouts.

Can you read? when one projects growth, you don't just project the top line, you have to project the impact on that growth by expansion of that tax base etc. YOu have created a projected budget before haven't you? or did you just apply a factor to revenue and left everything else as it was - bet you had a helluva profit projection if you did.

AS for the cut in the size of the government - how long is a piece of string? Not that romney has given any indication of how he would actually shut down various departments and transfer those functions to the states -nor any costs involved nor any indication of how the states would be able to absorb new costs, nor how they could rapidly replace federal expertise and infrastructure on a local basis etc. et.c etc. etc. No, you simply make an ideological assumption that regardless of the cost and chaos and non=existent measurement criteria, it will be better. where I come from, that's called snake oil politics.

The article has no idea what loopholes are going to be cut and no idea what the Romney economic plan is other than he will not be promoting class warfare, will not be growing the size of govt, won't be promoting the demonization of individual wealth creation or equal outcome instead of equal opportunity. Tax cuts did not cause the finanical collapses and that is what the liberal media doesn't want to tell the people. It makes no sense that any American keeping more of what they earn caused the financial collapse nor is it an expense to the govt.

Not promoting class warfare - what a joke. He is already proposing enormous tax breaks for the rich or do you think poor people deal with dividends and capital gains and estates over $5 million? When was the last time a president cut the size of government? Wasn't W. the guy who increased government spending the most since ww2? Its not that depts like homeland security, DEA, DOD, etc couldn't do with a nice neat haircut, but without a clear plan, it is so much hot air from the etchasketch wizard hisownself.

Far too many look at pure arithmetic and ignore human behavior. Obama never understood it nor do most of his supporters. Obama spends more time on TV, on vacation, playing golf, campaigning, and fund raising. What you don't seem to understand is that a good Presidential record wouldn't require all that fundraising to spin the record.

Obama is an empty suit, he is incompetent, and no matter how you spin it Romney will have a mess to clean up but has the experience and will hire the people to do it.

You think romney will have a bigger mess to clean up than Obama had?

What is with you? you keep repeating this mantra over and over as tho it has some hypnotizing quality. Of the top I can think of at least 20 posts you have made that have included some variation of the last two paragraphs.

Well, I suppose the rich insulated lifestyle of Romney has certainly given him a terrific insight into human nature, but it seems a pretty weak reason for you from blindly follow the first politician I have seen in at least 25 years that truly epitomizes groucho's famous remark about principles.

 

[Conservative]

Jonsa;1061006673]Can you read? when one projects growth, you don't just project the top line, you have to project the impact on that growth by expansion of that tax base etc. YOu have created a projected budget before haven't you? or did you just apply a factor to revenue and left everything else as it was - bet you had a helluva profit projection if you did.

There is no evidence that the growth rate projected 23 million more taxpayers, please provide me with that proof, nor did it provide evidence of any cut in the size of govt. Again waiting for evidence.

AS for the cut in the size of the government - how long is a piece of string? Not that romney has given any indication of how he would actually shut down various departments and transfer those functions to the states -nor any costs involved nor any indication of how the states would be able to absorb new costs, nor how they could rapidly replace federal expertise and infrastructure on a local basis etc. et.c etc. etc. No, you simply make an ideological assumption that regardless of the cost and chaos and non=existent measurement criteria, it will be better. where I come from, that's called snake oil politics.

He has already talked about not borrowing 40 cents on the dollar to pay for programs that we don't need. You will see Romney negotiate with Congress, something Obama never did. What I do know is that we have a 5.6 trillion dollar debt after four years of Obama. We have had four years of "hope and change" where now hope is gone and we are left with only change in our pockets.

Not promoting class warfare - what a joke. He is already proposing enormous tax breaks for the rich or do you think poor people deal with dividends and capital gains and estates over $5 million? When was the last time a president cut the size of government? Wasn't W. the guy who increased government spending the most since ww2? Its not that depts like homeland security, DEA, DOD, etc couldn't do with a nice neat haircut, but without a clear plan, it is so much hot air from the etchasketch wizard hisownself.

Do you know what a tax break is? It is people keeping more of what they earn and you seem to have a problem with that. Bush's last budget was 3.1 trillion dollars, last year Obama spent 3.8 trillion dollars. You don't seem to understand the concept of submitting a budget with less spending, not using the highest budget in history as a baseline.

You think romney will have a bigger mess to clean up than Obama had?

Obama took over an economy that came out of recession in June 2009 so tell me what OBama did to bring us out of that recession? Yes, Romney will have 22.7 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers which Obama didn't have, Romney will have a bigger debt than our yearly GDP which Obama never had, Romney will have 48 million on Food stamps which Obama didn't have, Romney will have a 25 billion dollar debt owed to us by GM that Obama never had so yes, Romney will have a bigger mess to clean up

What is with you? you keep repeating this mantra over and over as tho it has some hypnotizing quality. Of the top I can think of at least 20 posts you have made that have included some variation of the last two paragraphs.

I have to repeat the same thing over and over again because the facts don't sink into the head of an Obama supporter. Seems that an Obama supporter cannot grasp the facts presented and apparently you are still having problems with them so I will keep posting them until you grasp the data

Well, I suppose the rich insulated lifestyle of Romney has certainly given him a terrific insight into human nature, but it seems a pretty weak reason for you from blindly follow the first politician I have seen in at least 25 years that truly epitomizes groucho's famous remark about principles.

You seem to have a real problem with success and don't seem to understand that success can be contageous. You also seem to ignore the Obama background which was one of privilege and yet you believe he relates more to those that aren't the so called rich. Obama has had more of an effect on creating more dependence than Romney ever has.

 

[Objective Voice]

I didn't respond because I know that you have no idea as to the role of govt. or apparently the role of the President.

And with that, our dialog is over.

You don't know me, sir. And you don't know the extint of my knowledge. So, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from presuming to know me intimately in such a manner.

Unlike you, I won't stoop to personal attacks. Instead, I would implore you to read the information I provided per the links to Romney's foreign policy websites and compare what he says to the positions the President has taken on foreign policy and see if you can discern a true difference. Of course, you'd have to take off your partisan blinders first in order to come to any level of truth. Nonetheless, we're done. No need to replay; you're back on my ignore list as of now.

 

[Conservative]

And with that, our dialog is over.

You don't know me, sir. And you don't know the extint of my knowledge. So, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from presuming to know me intimately in such a manner.

Unlike you, I won't stoop to personal attacks. Instead, I would implore you to read the information I provided per the links to Romney's foreign policy websites and compare what he says to the positions the President has taken on foreign policy and see if you can discern a true difference. Of course, you'd have to take off your partisan blinders first in order to come to any level of truth. Nonetheless, we're done. No need to replay; you're back on my ignore list as of now.

You are the one that said you knew the role of govt. and have offered no proof of that especially when you defend Obama. Now you talk about Romney's Foreign policy website while ignoring the Obama failures. I am willing to roll the dice with Romney based upon his experience and resume compared to the actual Obama results.

I have absolutely no problem being on your ignore list or anyone else's. I will continue to refute your posts with actual verifiable data. You want to attack Romney's foreign policy when we have our embassies attacked around the world and an Ambassador killed? You want to ignore the failures of Obama's foreign policy then listen to someone who experienced the horrors of the Arab Spring first hand

Lara Logan: 60 Minutes Reporter Openly Blasts Obama For Being Soft on Terrorism

 

[Jonsa]

There is no evidence that the growth rate projected 23 million more taxpayers, please provide me with that proof, nor did it provide evidence of any cut in the size of govt. Again waiting for evidence.

excuse me, but a growth rate of 8.1% implies putting a huge chunk of those taxpayers back to work. I beleive a unemployment rate around 5% is considered full employment. As for cut the size of government, again how long is a piece of string? Even romney doesn't have a clue about that number.

He has already talked about not borrowing 40 cents on the dollar to pay for programs that we don't need. You will see Romney negotiate with Congress, something Obama never did. What I do know is that we have a 5.6 trillion dollar debt after four years of Obama. We have had four years of "hope and change" where now hope is gone and we are left with only change in our pockets.

Unless of course the democrats decide to pull a page out of the republican play book and refuse to compromise, declare a record number of filibusters and vote no on every piece of republican legislation offered.

As for his talking about 40cents on the dollar for programs that are not needed? come again? are you actually saying that Romney thinks that 40% of government spending is unnecessary? Wow, that'll be some laundry list. But hey if romney wins, we can both watch him run up the deficit while he spends even more repealing the AHCA, downloading federal departments to the states, cutting taxes on the wealthy's main source of income - investments, adding to the military, spending 716 billion on medicare etc etc. Given this level of fiscal common sense, the only conclusion I can draw is the man is both a wizard and a new mathematician.

Do you know what a tax break is? It is people keeping more of what they earn and you seem to have a problem with that. Bush's last budget was 3.1 trillion dollars, last year Obama spent 3.8 trillion dollars. You don't seem to understand the concept of submitting a budget with less spending, not using the highest budget in history as a baseline.

I don't have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn. Unfortunately, before they get to keep more of what they earn, don't you think it is prudent that they at least pay back a little of what they owe? Or did all those tax breaks not cause an increase in debt? And obama has shed $200 billion in spending from 2010 in 2011 (roughly 17%) and still managed to retain important social programs.

And, you fail to understand that the previous budget MUST be the baseline for the next budget, unless you are zero based budgeting which is impossible for a government the size of the US to do.

Obama took over an economy that came out of recession in June 2009 so tell me what OBama did to bring us out of that recession? Yes, Romney will have 22.7 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers which Obama didn't have, Romney will have a bigger debt than our yearly GDP which Obama never had, Romney will have 48 million on Food stamps which Obama didn't have, Romney will have a 25 billion dollar debt owed to us by GM that Obama never had so yes, Romney will have a bigger mess to clean up

So you think that romney will have a bigger mess because there are more unemployed? So the fact that Obama took office when the economy was shedding 800,000 PER MONTH isn't nearly as bad as Romney taking office with 31 straight months of job growth? The debt? which is of course why Romney's plan calls for steadily increasing federal debt that tops out in 2015 with a $30 trillion GDP and a $30 trillion national debt, or the fact that OBama inherited a $trillion deficit and so will Romney.
GM owes the gov't $25 billion? That's worse than Obama staring the total collapse of the American Auto Industry not to mention that little wall street financial meltdown he had to contend with. romney coming in with only 1 war to deal with instead of Obama's two.

Oh yes, romney would have it way worse in any delusional right wing mind, but the facts demonstrate that Obama has actually made significant improvements over the past 4 years. Its been expensive, but nonetheless. But of course a republican can't say that, it shoots down his entire anti-obama ethos .

have to repeat the same thing over and over again because the facts don't sink into the head of an Obama supporter. Seems that an Obama supporter cannot grasp the facts presented and apparently you are still having problems with them so I will keep posting them until you grasp the data
You seem to have a real problem with success and don't seem to understand that success can be contageous. You also seem to ignore the Obama background which was one of privilege and yet you believe he relates more to those that aren't the so called rich. Obama has had more of an effect on creating more dependence than Romney ever has.

Bizarre. you have just described your own tactics as insanity. I hope you don't mind if I smile smugly and consider agreement.

 

[Conservative]

Jonsa;1061007561]excuse me, but a growth rate of 8.1% implies putting a huge chunk of those taxpayers back to work. I beleive a unemployment rate around 5% is considered full employment. As for cut the size of government, again how long is a piece of string? Even romney doesn't have a clue about that number.

This is getting rather old especially dealing with someone from Canada who doesn't have a thing invested in this country's election. I have given you the list of items the Republicans want to cut from the budget but you probably forgot them. As for people going back to work, how do you know the 8.1% assumes that? Let's see the budget showing the tax revenue that will generate?

Unless of course the democrats decide to pull a page out of the republican play book and refuse to compromise, declare a record number of filibusters and vote no on every piece of republican legislation offered.

I am still waiting for the filibuster list of items Obama wanted that he didn't get that would have made a difference in the economic numbers we have today. Maybe the Canadian Press can give you what I cannot get from Obama supporters here.

As for his talking about 40cents on the dollar for programs that are not needed? come again? are you actually saying that Romney thinks that 40% of government spending is unnecessary? Wow, that'll be some laundry list. But hey if romney wins, we can both watch him run up the deficit while he spends even more repealing the AHCA, downloading federal departments to the states, cutting taxes on the wealthy's main source of income - investments, adding to the military, spending 716 billion on medicare etc etc. Given this level of fiscal common sense, the only conclusion I can draw is the man is both a wizard and a new mathematician.

Again, I gave you the laundry list before but you ignored it apparently and still buy the Obama lies, wonder why? You think allowing people to keep more of what they earn is an expense to the govt? For some reason I cannot get an Obama supporter to answer that question

I don't have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn. Unfortunately, before they get to keep more of what they earn, don't you think it is prudent that they at least pay back a little of what they owe? Or did all those tax breaks not cause an increase in debt? And obama has shed $200 billion in spending from 2010 in 2011 (roughly 17%) and still managed to retain important social programs.

What expenses did the tax cuts create? What do those evil rich people in this country owe that requires more Federal Income Taxes? I posted the line item expenses from the budget but you ignored that as well. Not sure where you get your information but Obama has added 5.6 trillion to the debt in 4 years so where is the cut? The Treasury Dept doesn't seem to be your friend.

And, you fail to understand that the previous budget MUST be the baseline for the next budget, unless you are zero based budgeting which is impossible for a government the size of the US to do.

Your opinion is noted and obviously you buy into the liberal view that we need to grow the size of govt. every year and that isn't the case at all. It is time to start eliminating departments and expenditures as this country is broke.

So you think that romney will have a bigger mess because there are more unemployed? So the fact that Obama took office when the economy was shedding 800,000 PER MONTH isn't nearly as bad as Romney taking office with 31 straight months of job growth? The debt? which is of course why Romney's plan calls for steadily increasing federal debt that tops out in 2015 with a $30 trillion GDP and a $30 trillion national debt, or the fact that OBama inherited a $trillion deficit and so will Romney.

You buy the liberal lies quite well. Those 800000 in jobs being shed turned into 800000 dropping out of the labor force becoming discouraged workers. 31 straight months of job growth has created a 40000 drop in median income so what does that tell you about the Obama economy?

Your support of Barack Obama is very misguided at best.

GM owes the gov't $25 billion? That's worse than Obama staring the total collapse of the American Auto Industry not to mention that little wall street financial meltdown he had to contend with. romney coming in with only 1 war to deal with instead of Obama's two.

Oh, I see, so GM/Chrysler is the Auto Industry. Amazing how little you know about the auto industry. Do some research and find out how many auto companies there are and if you think GM was going to go out of business completely you really are very naive. Unions were the only one saved by the taxpayer bailout and the taxpayers will never get their money back.

Oh yes, romney would have it way worse in any delusional right wing mind, but the facts demonstrate that Obama has actually made significant improvements over the past 4 years. Its been expensive, but nonetheless. But of course a republican can't say that, it shoots down his entire anti-obama ethos .

The facts show that you don't have any idea what you are talking about. This country cannot afford four more years of Obama and his lack of leadership.

 

[johnny_rebson]

Russia has no reason to start anything violent with the United States

"We will bury you" is a quote that many Americans will never forget.

 

[johnny_rebson]

Get all the oil, and slaughter whomever gets in your way.[/QUOTE]


What type of energy does your car run on?

Face it, we can't live without oil.

 

[solletica]

In Virginia, Mitt Romney calls for change of course in Middle East - The Washington Post

Opinions?

Romney: Bomb, bomb, bomb, . . .

 

[solletica]

Obama is again not going to guess correctly Mitt Romney's next debate appearance.

Ah, he's reversing his sexuality as part of his plan to move a little left.

 

[AdamT]

"We will bury you" is a quote that many Americans will never forget.

Yep, that and "the British are coming" ... but I don't think too many of us consider Britain our No. 1 enemy.

 

[upsideguy]

He sounded like a Republican from the 1980s.. with a 1980s point of view. Some of the crap he spouted out really scares me, plus where will he get the money for his massive military expansion?

Undoubtedly he will fund it with a tax cut....

 

[Wiseone]

"We will bury you" is a quote that many Americans will never forget.

How is this relevant?

 

[Conservative]

How is this relevant?

We are being destroyed from within and our economic system is being destroyed by liberalism.

 

[Wiseone]

We are being destroyed from within and our economic system is being destroyed by liberalism.

What does that have to do with the quote from a speech given in 1956 by Nikita Khrushchev?

 

[Conservative]

What does that have to do with the quote from a speech given in 1956 by Nikita Khrushchev?

IMO those on the inside destroying this country are leftwing socialists or at worst communists

 

[Wiseone]

IMO those on the inside destroying this country are leftwing socialists or at worst communists

Ok here's the issue we're having with this conversation, you've come running up claiming the sky is falling and after looking up and seeing its not falling, instead of walking away from someone who's clearly crazy I've been giving you chances to explain why its falling but you've failed to do so.

So I understand what your opinion is, I understand what you're saying, but I'm asking you to explain how you've reached this conclusion.

 

[SheWolf]

I can't take serious any foreign policy comments from a man who believes Russian is America's main enemy in 2012.

I know... WTH. Where did that come from? I remember Bush used to talk like the Cold War was still going on too. I don't understand it at all.

 

[Conservative]

Ok here's the issue we're having with this conversation, you've come running up claiming the sky is falling and after looking up and seeing its not falling, instead of walking away from someone who's clearly crazy I've been giving you chances to explain why its falling but you've failed to do so.

So I understand what your opinion is, I understand what you're saying, but I'm asking you to explain how you've reached this conclusion.

It really isn't that difficult, look at how class warfare is being fought, individual wealth creation demonized, envy for someone else's possessions, promotion of equal outcome instead of equal opportunity. This country was built on sound economic principles of free enterprise and capitalism that is now under direct assault.

 

[pbrauer]

What does that have to do with the quote from a speech given in 1956 by Nikita Khrushchev?

IMO those on the inside destroying this country are leftwing socialists or at worst communists

As long as it's your opinion, there is not much to worry about.